Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Uncorrected superior glenoid wear in patients managed with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) can result in increased complications, including baseplate failure. The present study quantifies the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with Favard type-E1, E2, and E3 glenoid deformity who were managed with rTSA with use of a superior or superior/posterior augmented glenoid baseplate. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed the records for 68 patients with shoulder arthritis and Favard type-E1, E2, or E3 glenoid deformity who were managed with primary rTSA and a 10° superior augmented or 10° superior/8° posterior augmented baseplate. The mean duration of follow-up was 40 months (range, 24 to 85 months). Outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up with shoulder range of motion and use of outcome scores including the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score. Radiographs were evaluated preoperatively and at the time of the latest follow-up. Differences in preoperative and postoperative range of motion and outcome metrics were assessed with use of a 2-tailed Student t test. RESULTS:The majority of patients experienced clinically meaningful improvements in terms of pain and function following rTSA with a superior or superior/posterior augment, with 94% of patients rating themselves as "much better" (73.5%) or "better" (20.5%) at the time of the latest follow-up. At least 88% of the patients exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold, and 75% of patients exceeded the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) threshold, for each of the clinical outcome metrics and range of motion. Five complications were reported (prevalence, 7.4%), including acromial stress fracture (2 patients), posttraumatic scapular neck fracture (1 patient), chronic shoulder pain (1 patient), and aseptic glenoid loosening (1 patient). CONCLUSIONS:The present short-term clinical and radiographic study demonstrated that shoulder arthropathy with superior glenoid wear patterns (Favard types E1, E2, and E3) can be successfully treated with rTSA with a superior or superior/posterior augmented baseplate. Longer-term clinical and radiographic follow-up is necessary to confirm that these promising short-term results are durable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Latarjet-Patte procedure has a long and storied history that predates shoulder arthroscopy, but its popularity has increased over the past two decades as a treatment for anterior glenohumeral instability with bone loss. Transfer of the coracoid process and conjoint tendon to the anteroinferior glenoid creates a triple-blocking effect that is both static and dynamic, lending it biomechanical superiority over alternative bone block techniques. Patients undergoing the Latarjet-Patte procedure have low rates of recurrent instability compared to arthroscopic soft-tissue stabilization procedures, particularly in the setting of glenoid- and humeral-sided bone loss. A number of technical innovations have been developed in recent years to improve the efficacy of this procedure and to reduce its potential complications, although their associated learning curves and potential for widespread adoption remain unclear. In this article, we review the history, indications, outcomes, and future of this surgical technique.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS:Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P=0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P<0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P<0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P=0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P=0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P<0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P=0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P=0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P=0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P=<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P=0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND:Cervical spine pathology can affect the supporting muscles and function of the shoulder and contribute to shoulder and arm pain and hence may impact postoperative outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a history of cervical spine arthrodesis and its timing, before or after TSA, on the outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Our hypothesis is that a history of cervical arthrodesis will negatively impact patient outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a prospectively collected cohort at a single institution. Anatomic and reverse TSA patients (aTSA, rTSA) with cervical arthrodesis (CA) were identified and compared to a cohort of patients without cervical arthrodesis (NCA) enrolled in an institutional registry from 2011 to 2020. Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, implant type, range of motion (ROM), adverse events and clinical outcome metric scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant, Shoulder Function Score, patient satisfaction) were recorded. Outcomes between cohorts were analyzed using conventional statistics as well as stratification by MCID and SCB thresholds where applicable. RESULTS:Of the 573 TSA evaluated, 48 (20a CA-aTSA and 28 CA-rTSA) had a history of and 425 (280 NCA-aTSA and 245 NCA-rTSA) had no history of cervical arthrodesis. The CA-TSA (aTSA and rTSA) had lower Constant, ASES and Shoulder Function, PROMs postoperatively as well as less improvement in active ER and an overall lower satisfaction rating (p<0.05 for all) compared to NCA-TSA. The adverse event rate in the CA-TSA cohort was higher compared to NCA-TSA cohort (25% vs. 6.5 [rTSA; p=0.004] and 24.5% vs 11% [aTSA; p=0.068]). Optimal cutoff analysis showed that a time from CA to TSA of greater than 1.33 years had a sensitivity of 75.0% and specificity of 75.0% in predicting achievement of SCB for ASES. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The current study demonstrates that patients with a history of cervical arthrodesis undergoing shoulder arthroplasty results in lower postoperative functional outcomes, lower patient satisfaction, and higher rates of postoperative adverse events requiring surgical revision when compared to a cohort without a history of cervical arthrodesis. Additionally, the current study demonstrates that a time interval of at least 16 months between cervical arthrodesis and shoulder arthroplasty optimizes chances of achieving SCB for ASES.

BACKGROUND:Primary idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (AC) is characterized by shoulder pain and global limitations in range of motion (ROM). The aim of this study was to determine (1) if a spectrum of symptom severity exists during the freezing phase of AC and (2) identify factors associated with patient selection of corticosteroid injection (CSI) for treatment. METHODS:Patients presenting within 6-months of symptom onset of AC (freezing phase) were enrolled in this single-site retrospective case control study. Visual analog pain score (VAS), shoulder ROM, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS function and pain) scores were collected. Each patient was offered oral anti-inflammatory medication, physical therapy, and intraarticular corticosteroid injection (CSI). Patients were divided into two cohorts: those electing versus those deferring CSI. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify patient or symptom characteristics predictive of electing CSI. RESULTS:A total of 112 patients [mean age=54.7+/-8.8, female=76 (67.9%), mean symptom duration in weeks=13.2+/-7.9, elected CSI=74 (66.1%)] were included in our analysis. The overall study population demonstrated a wide spectrum of VAS pain scores [6.0+/-2.8 (range: 0-10)] and ROM: forward elevation (FE) [99.1°+/-27.0° (range: 30°-150°)], abduction (Abd) [81.5°+/-23.5° (range: 30°-130°)], external rotation (ER) [46.6°+/-13.0° (range: 0°-90°)], internal rotation (IR) [38.47°+/- 25.9° (range: 5°-90°)]. The CSI group had higher mean VAS pain score [6.6+/-2.5 versus 4.9+/-3.0, p=0.005] and greater limitations in ROM for FE [91.9°+/-26.9° versus 112.9°+/- 24.6°, p = 0.001] and Abd [77.2°+/- 23.6° versus 89.9°+/- 21.1°, p = 0.005] compared to the non-CSI cohort. The CSI group demonstrated significantly worse shoulder function based on Constant (p<.05), ASES (P=0.001), P-UE (P=0.016), P-Intensity (p=0.002), and P-Interference (p=0.004). Logistic regression demonstrated decreased total shoulder ROM in FE and Abd plains [OR=0.98 (95% CI=0.97-0.99), p=0.004)], Hispanic ethnicity and increased VAS pain score [OR=1.20 (95% CI=1.01-1.43), p=0.04] were associated with increased likelihood of electing CSI. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A spectrum of symptom severity exists during the freezing phase of primary AC, despite similar etiology. AC patients with greater pain severity, and greater limitations in ROM at initial evaluation were associated with patient selection of CSI.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to implement a modified Delphi technique among a group of experts affiliated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (SECEC) to determine areas of consensus regarding what factors influence their decision to manage a patient surgically and what specific treatment modalities they utilize for patients ≤ 50 years of age with glenohumeral arthritis (GHA). METHODS:The panel of experts comprised 168 shoulder and elbow specialists, 138 ASES and 30 SECEC members. In the first round, an open-ended questionnaire was utilized to solicit features that are important in making decisions regarding treatment. The second round involved ranking the features identified in the first round as to their importance in helping decision making for surgery. The results of round two were then utilized and 18 complex surgical cases previously treated by one of the lead authors were provided for the study. One additional case was included to address the management of Cutibacterium acne (C.Acne) infection. RESULTS:159 (95.0%) participants completed the round one survey, 142 (89%) responded to the second and third round survey. In total 50 individual factors were positively associated with the decision to proceed with surgery. Ten of these were strongly supportive of surgery. Eight out of 18 clinical cases demonstrated >80% agreement on the surgical treatment modality chosen. Over 90% of respondents chose rTSA to manage pathology when an incompetent rotator cuff was present. Over 90% of respondents managed AVN with hemiarthroplasty (HA). Over 70% of respondents chose aTSA for inflammatory arthritis with low demand on their shoulder. 79% of respondents chose a stemless humeral component when a HA or aTSA was chosen in response to the proposed surgical cases. If arthroscopy was chosen there was good agreement on five core procedures. There was only fair consensus on the approach to C.acnes in patients with GH OA≤ 50 years of age. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The optimal treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in patients ≤ 50 years of age remains controversial, and there are many treatment options to consider when responding to the variety of clinical presentations and anatomic pathologies. While physicians and patients engage in the shared decision-making process regarding the final choice for management, this consensus statement serves as a basis for discussion amongst colleagues and between patients and surgeons though it clearly demonstrates that the topic must be further investigated prospectively and with large cohorts.

BACKGROUND:Preoperative planning software and intraoperative guidance technology is being increasingly used for managing complex glenoid deformity in anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA; rTSA). The aim of this study is to review the intraoperative efficacy and complications of computer assisted navigation (CAN) surgery for treating glenoid deformity in TSA. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of all the TSAs implanted using a single computer navigation shoulder system. All patients underwent preoperative planning using a CT based preoperative planning software. The starting point on the glenoid, and the final version and inclination of the central post (cage) of the glenoid component were reviewed on the intraoperative navigation guidance report and compared to these parameters on the preoperative plan for each patient. The intraoperative accuracy of CAN for the glenoid was determined by the deviation of the starting point and final position of the central cage drill in the glenoid compared to preoperative plan. Intraoperative complications and the number of times the navigation system was abandoned intraoperatively were collected. RESULTS:A total of 16,723 aTSAs and rTSAs performed worldwide with this navigation system were included in this review. 16,368 cases (98%) completed every step in the navigation procedure without abandoning use of the system intraoperatively. There was minimal deviation in the intraoperative execution of the preoperative plan with respect to version (0.6° ± 1.96°), inclination (0.2° ± 2.04°) and starting point on the glenoid face (1.90mm ± 1.2 mm). There were 9 coracoid fractures (0.05%) reported in this cohort. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:And Discussion: This study demonstrates the safety and efficacy of computer assisted navigation for glenoid implantation in TSA. Future studies should continue to focus on the impact of CAN on longevity and survival of the glenoid component and improve cost-effectiveness of this technology.

Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the pattern of changes in activities of daily living (ADLs), sleep disturbance, and pain in the early postoperative period following a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Methods: Prospective data on patterns of limitation in ADLs, sleep disturbance, and pain were collected from patients undergoing elective TSA preoperatively and at specific time points postoperatively (2, 6, and 12 weeks). At each time point, patients were asked regarding the major limitation affecting their shoulder. Limitations in ADLs and sleep disturbances were scored on a 3-point scale (0 = unable to do, 3 = no difficulty) modeled after the ADL which require active external rotation score and visual analog scale scores were used for pain. Patient responses were analyzed with respect to patient factors (demographics, arm dominance, function of opposite arm, and ambulation status), and living situation (alone, or with caregiver). Results: Shoulder pain (43%) and inability to perform ADLs (38%) were the 2 most commonly reported limitations prior to undergoing TSA. Patients noticed progressive improvements in pain with 37% reductions in visual analog scale scores at 2 weeks and 67% reduction at 3 months. At 2 weeks after TSA, sleep disturbances were the most disabling issue in 33% of the cohort, with considerable improvements (104%) in sleep scores at 3 months compared to pre-op. The ADLs involving forward elevation and working at the waist level improved considerably between 6 weeks and 3 months, but activities involving rotation including reaching behind the back, across the chest, and use of strength showed mild improvements by 3 months. Conclusion: This prospective study demonstrates the chronology of improvements in pattern of limitations experienced by patients with respect to pain, sleep, and ADLs in the early postoperative period after TSA. Majority of patients can expect to have 2/3 resolution of pain, improved sleep, and improvement in ADLs involving forward elevation and waist level function by 3 months.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Coracoid fracture is a rare injury. The aim of this study is to present the demographics, clinical and radiologic characteristics, and outcomes of coracoid fracture in a cohort of 32 patients. METHODS:We queried our institutional electronic medical record database (years 2012-2020) to identify patients with coracoid fractures using specific International Classification of Disease-10 codes. Demographic data, injury details including mechanism of injury and associated injuries, imaging performed, and treatment outcomes were obtained from retrospective chart review. A radiologist reviewed all available imaging studies (radiographs/CT/MRI) and classified the fractures according to Ogawa and Eyres classifications. Missed diagnoses were determined by comparing initial imaging reports with the follow-up imaging obtained in the office. RESULTS:Thirty-two patients with coracoid fractures were identified during the study period. Sixteen fractures (50%) occurred in the setting of low-energy trauma. Twelve fractures were missed on initial radiographs, and diagnosis with three-view radiographs (AP, scapular-Y and axillary) was 88% compared to 33% (p < 0.03) with two views (AP, scapular-Y). The majority of fractures were non-displaced (94%), and 56% were Ogawa Type-II fractures. Associated injuries were seen in 81% of patients. Most fractures (94%) were treated without surgery with excellent outcomes. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Coracoid fractures continue to be a rare injury. In contrast to previous studies, in this case series of 32 patients, half of the fractures were associated with low-energy trauma, which correlated with higher percentage of non-displaced fractures and Ogawa Type-II fractures. Addition of the axillary view in the trauma radiographic series significantly improved the initial fracture detection rate. LEVEL IV/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE:To compare MRI with 3D reconstructions and 3D-CT with respect to assessment of glenoid wear in osteoarthritic shoulders. METHODS:3D reconstructions were generated for CT and MR (utilizing the Dixon technique) imaging performed on 29 osteoarthritic shoulders. Two reviewers independently performed glenoid morphometric measurements and evaluated glenoid erosion. Mean differences between the two modalities were calculated. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using kappa coefficient. RESULTS:The combined mean absolute difference (bias) in glenoid version between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 2.7° ± 1.6° (range 0.15-7.85, P value = 0.7). The combined mean absolute difference in glenoid inclination between 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was 6.8° ± 4.1° (range 0.8°-15.75°, P value = 0.17). No significant inter-reader variation in glenoid version and inclination measurements on 3D-CT and 3D-MRI was found (P > 0.05). The inter-reader reliability for both CT and MRI was high for Walch grading of glenoid bone loss (κ = 1, κ = 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:3D-MRI is comparable to 3D-CT with respect to axial glenoid bone loss, as measured by glenoid version. However, for coronal bone loss estimation, measured by glenoid inclination, 3D-CT remains the gold standard. Thus, 3D-MR can be used as an alternative for preoperative assessment of glenoid version in arthritic shoulders.